The Holy Land is full of caves and tunnels, many of which are very ancient. In Turkey they have whole underground cities, at Petra (in Jordan, IIRC) there is a whole Greco-Roman city carved into cliffs.

If people bomb your house, you lose a house. If they bomb your cave, you get a bigger cave sometimes. In the desert you have two building materials--mud and rock. Take your pick.

In Iceland they have to divert roads because the place is littered with elves, in Israel, because every square inch of ground is an ancient monument, a sacred site, or a gravesite.

And he's right you know.

Besides, if the Pope wants to ban Christmas, he has the power to ban Christmas. That's his prerogative. He's the Pope and always right about matters of the Faith (since Pope Dingus in the XIXth century said so).

Besides, I am totally OK with this. Not a Roman Catholic, but it would save me a fortune if somebody banned Christmas. I'm surprised that those spoil-sports and wet blankets in the "War on Christmas" crowd haven't tried it on again themselves, like their/my Puritan Ancestors did.

I am descended from both the accused and the accusors at the Salem Witch Trials. All in all, I like the accused better than the greedy, bulling, hypocritical SOBs who did the hanging.

Benevolent Misanthrope:Well - if he wants to be as historically correct as possible, he could mention that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, outside of the oral history copied into the religious works of the religion built around him.

Not sure if troll or just went to public school...

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30-36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Well - if he wants to be as historically correct as possible, he could mention that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, outside of the oral history copied into the religious works of the religion built around him.

I think they should present the Jesus figure in the context of a parable: describe him as a nice guy who did things for other people and wanted them to be nice to one another, and present some examples of what he did. Leave the supernatural stuff out. Take for example the loaves and fishes: don't say he performed a miracle; say he persuaded the townspeople to cooperate and barter and everyone was better off. It's more believable and makes a better example.

My old Catholic priest kind of explained the miracle of fish and loaves that way.

If you were going to see this guy talk, you'd probably take some food with you. After all, don't many of us bring food on road trips or hikes or walks. Well, you see this very inspirational guy sharing food, and encouraging others to do the same. So you share your food with your neighbors. Some brought a lot, some not so much, but in the end, everyone is fed.

It's was actually a lot more powerful a story that way than "Jesus magicked up some extra fish and bread, lol"

Well - if he wants to be as historically correct as possible, he could mention that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, outside of the oral history copied into the religious works of the religion built around him.

FFS - some guy in Rome says that their mythos doesn't mention some of the details that were added to the myth later, and next thing you know people are upset enough by the meaning of this offhand remark that the guys who consider themselves in charge have to put out a statement that he didn't just change the entire belief system.

I read a pretty good analysis a while back that a lot of the Nativity mythology is derived from a series of mistranslations and misunderstandings. The text is probably saying that Jesus was born in the lower room of Joseph's family ancestral home (kataluma - which could also mean "inn" but is probably referring to the home in this context). It was not uncommon for people to have animal feeding troughs (mangers) in this area because animals were often brought inside at night.

Bullseyed:Benevolent Misanthrope: Well - if he wants to be as historically correct as possible, he could mention that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, outside of the oral history copied into the religious works of the religion built around him.

Not sure if troll or just went to public school...

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30-36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

The bible contradicts itself on when Jesus was born because geographically seperated men (Peter and Paul) made shiat up and didn't think it would come back to haunt them. Too bad for them that a single bible was created out of contradictory gospels.

Matthew 16:18-19And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Acts 20:28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Well - if he wants to be as historically correct as possible, he could mention that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, outside of the oral history copied into the religious works of the religion built around him.

I think they should present the Jesus figure in the context of a parable: describe him as a nice guy who did things for other people and wanted them to be nice to one another, and present some examples of what he did. Leave the supernatural stuff out. Take for example the loaves and fishes: don't say he performed a miracle; say he persuaded the townspeople to cooperate and barter and everyone was better off. It's more believable and makes a better example.

In a nutshell, Mary and Joesph show up in Bethlehem to pay their taxes. They aren't legally married, but she's knocked up. The authorities are like, "this is bullshiat." Mary is all "Waaahhh." Joesph is like, "I know right?" The authorities want to flog the shiat out of Mary, but Joesph begs them to let him marry her instead. He even volunteers to take her beating for her, which leaves the villagers like "woah damn, biatch got a tight one." God heard that and tore all their dicks off in their sleep. Meanwhile, Mary is all, "I broke it riding horseback when I was eleven! It must be some miracle type shiat." People were like "ok! we don't have shiat going on right now to excite us so let's all agree to believe in some shiat and get worked up." Lots of dancing and wine drinking and petting the animals ensued. And that's why we have eggnog.

Well - if he wants to be as historically correct as possible, he could mention that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, outside of the oral history copied into the religious works of the religion built around him.

I think they should present the Jesus figure in the context of a parable: describe him as a nice guy who did things for other people and wanted them to be nice to one another, and present some examples of what he did. Leave the supernatural stuff out. Take for example the loaves and fishes: don't say he performed a miracle; say he persuaded the townspeople to cooperate and barter and everyone was better off. It's more believable and makes a better example.